Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 12-12-2018 passed by the Additional
Supreme Court: The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has held that when there is a reasonable basis for
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of interference in matters relating to Government contracts and tenders, the bench of Hemant Gupta* and V.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has invested Rs.1 lakh crores in the Bullet Train Project.
“A claim to refund is governed by statute. There is no constitutional entitlement to seek a refund.”
“Anyone can make mistakes. The consequences of mistakes should not be unduly harsh”
by Shaurya Sahay†
Supreme Court: The bench of MM Shantanagoudar* and Vineet Saran, JJ has lucidly explained the law governing consent decree and has held
“To say that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate, to our mind, is a preposterous statement, coming from the police.”
“It was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee.”
Employers prescribe qualifications to any post, not Courts.
Involvement of a member of the police service in a heinous crime, if established, has a direct bearing on the confidence of society in the police.
Supreme Court: Stating that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide, the bench of Arun
Supreme Court: The bench of Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran, JJ disposed of a plea challenging the appointment of M. Nageshwar Rao
Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi: A Bench comprising of Virendra Singh (Chairperson) and Lt. Gen. Sanjiv Chachra (Member) dismissed the original application
Supreme Court: Refusing to interfere with the appointment of KG Bopaiah as the pro-tem speaker, the 3-judge bench of Dr. AK Sikri, SA